California’s State Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 today. More than a victory for traditional marriage, this was a victory for the rule of law, regarding California’s referendum process. Ed Morrissey notes that because the gay marriages that were performed during the interim are grandfathered, this opens the door to years of competing referenda, and that’s true. What we’ll see is people arguing equal protection grounds, even though the argument is based on the extra-legal marriages that are to be let stand, and even as Congress rams through more “more-than-equal-protection” hate crimes legislation.
I would like to note that I have no objection to Vermont’s gay marriage law, beyond my objection that the government has no business in determining what constitutes marriage as opposed to any other recognized domestic arrangement, precisely because it was passed with deference to the state’s constitution.
I would like to make an observation:
In the 1950s and 1960s, during the civil rights movement, those who wanted to change the status quo behaved in a dignified manner. Those who wanted to maintain their nasty little superiority behaved monstrously.
With the same-sex marriage issue, the roles are reversed. Those who want to maintain the status quo are behaving in a dignified manner, whereas those who allegedly want to increase acceptance and tolerance are behaving monstrously.
Draw your own conclusions.
In a quiet ceremony on Sunday I married my long-time love, my golf clubs. It’s not without its rough spots however.
Why are you all so homophobic? And prolly racist too.
JD, you forgot to denounce us… ;-)
Denounced. Denounced and condemned, bitches.
The deference, it changes everything. Except actual things.
Oh, this is just the camel’s nose, Dan. I’ve already seen references to “two or more consenting adults” from some of the usually suspect places. Next up: Marry your goat!
Alp:
You’ve made a big mistake. I was really getting on well with my golf clubs and when they suggested we should tie the knot I eagerly agreed.
After a brief honeymoon period… Well the relationship went all to shit. Typical behaviour? When my driver sent my ball into the woods and I wound up with a restricted backswing, no follow through and no path back into the fairway, I would look to my clubs for some help and they would just shrug and say; “You put it there… You get it out.”
Well, to cut a long story short(er), it all came to a head the day my 5 iron put three consecutive balls in the lake on the seventeenth and as I jammed it back into the bag, the wheels fell of my trolley.
Of course, I traded them in for a newer model, (and boy, was that a traumatic experience), but I’ve never regained the trust I had with that original set before we made that fateful decision.
Right. Gay marriage is the slippery slope that will lead to (the return of) polygamy and marriage to animals. Or were you just being hopeful?
STFU, Sammy. When we want your opinion, we will just kick a cat.
I really don’t get allowing the gay marriages already preformed to stand.
I guess it makes some kind of sense if the law was the reported “anti-gay marriage” law, but it isn’t. It is a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
Except for those that aren’t? It makes no sense.
You should have tried counseling Kevin. When my clubs aren’t acting like they love me, I just accuse them of being gay.
And Perez Hilton is still a cunt.
STFU, Sammy. When we want your opinion, we will just kick a cat.
And when we want shit out of you, we’ll squeeze your head.
Should we spend all day hurling schoolyard insults?
We will settle for you not acting like a twat, again. I know, slim chance …
Should we spend all day hurling schoolyard insults?
He said we don’t give a fuck what you think. Not a lot of interest in a back and forth implied there.
Should we spend all day hurling schoolyard insults?
Normally, I’d say yes. But I’m going to the gym in a minute …
Where was it last week that gay marriage legislation DIDN’t pass because they put in a provision protecting the rights of clergy to refuse to participate?? Saying that religions have “right” is to protect discrimination, don’t you know.
No slippery slope here at all.
Precisely, Abe.
right needs an “s” up there. Here’s a few spares … ssss
sssprinkle at will.
That was New Hampshire, Carin.
Do you know why that slope is so slippery? K-Y.
AND, i know I saw something on the news about sex ed in California. here . This isn’t “JUST” about the rights of two people who love each other. Kindergarteners were to be taught to not be homophobic, and parents could NOT opt out.
You don’t have to accept us (except we’re going to sue Clergy who don’t give us what we want)
We’re not going to teach homosexuality ( we’re going to teach tolerance, which strangely looks rather similar to teaching homosexuality)
Run this facetious twaddle by the first black person you see, Sammy. Or Hispanic. Or Asian.
I think you have that wrong:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/same.sex.states/
Carin – IIRC, and I do, the law passed without protections for religions. The Guv told them he would veto unless it was passed with protections for religions, and they were unable to do so.
There’ll be howling, moaning, and teeth gnashing in The Castro tonight…
And I’m sure that revenge will be sworn against those eeeeeevil Mormons that brought on this measure…
Of course, not against the millions of blacks or latinos that voted to uphold the sanctity of marriage…
I mean, just because its open season on Mormons doesn’t change the protected status of the trump cards in the identity politics deck…
And if you don’t join them in their vilification of those who oppose gay marriage…Well Then You’re Just A Hater!…
Ah, once again, reason, logic, respect, and tolerance prevail in the big tent that is the Democratic party…
Sammy – That was a fucking lie and you are a fucking liar.
Carin is right,
This is chiefly about the forced legitimization and mainstreaming of a lifestyle choice…
And the inculcation of the charade of its normalcy in coming generations of our youth…
Oh, and of course, the right to be able to use the law to force the church to violate their tenets, and force them to accept this lifestyle choice as morally equivalent, normal, and legitimate…
Link please.
If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it. I am driving and on my Blackberry, so I cannot post a link.
And what’s wrong with that? What’s your beef with gay marriage?
JD: You wouldn’t know to pour piss out of a boot if directions were written on the heel.
Since you are asking for links, I would like a link to the scientific proof of the existence of justice.
Sammy, would you have legislative compulsion of a church to perform a marriage their tenets don’t sanction?
Homophobes! God-botherers!
32
Maybe the problem is with the word “forced”. Fascist twit.
Do you have a link for Cap’n Ed?
Sammy – Apparently, unlike you, I would be smart enough not to piss in my boot in the first place. Everyone knows that racist redneck hilljacks like us piss in outhouses.
It is the right decision? Hell yeah. It was no longer about gay marriage, the decision is about procedure. If the California Supreme court said that voters could not change the constitution (when their laws clearly allow them to do so), that would be very scary. As for the underlying outcome, I would vote for gay marriage. I just think it is a voter or legislative decision, not a decision for the courts to decide for us.
LtC John – That would be a feature, not a bug.
Here I found it all by myself. This is interesting though cause of what if Cap’n Ed is wrong about how it plays out and Republicans fashion and sell a compelling civil union package in the meantime? That would be very interesting and would a lot affect the debate nationally I think… A civil union ballot initiative should be a Republican priority in California I think. I would be very impressed.
“Comment by JD on 5/26 @ 1:38 pm #
LtC John – That would be a feature, not a bug.”
And it’s the goal.
Ummm, what road are you on JD?
You know, so I can avoid it…
What do you have against camel toes!
70 West between Indy and Saint Louis ;-)
Can one of you please look up and see if my recollection of how that played out in NH was correct or not? If I was mistaken, would some non-douchebag please correct me.
Will one of the gay spouses be able to charge the other with a hate crime if they are denied custody of the adopted children in a hotly contested divorce?
I just want to know if the mosque down near the Cook County 6th District is going to have to marry men to men or women to women against their imam’s will. Or will the same legal theory make the Catholic Church marry two divorced people with full Communion and such? It wouldn’t be fair to provide legal compulsion on the side of homosexual marriage only. We’d have to see a Jewish temple be forced to marry Wiccans, etc.?
happyfeet–California has civil unions. California had civil unions that were the same as marriage except for the title “marriage” them before this whole gay marriage decision.
“I just want to know if the mosque down near the Cook County 6th District is going to have to marry men to men or women to women against their imam’s will.”
Yo know the deal. The future over-arching gay marriage law will only apply to the non-jihad religions and only those in the white neighborhoods.
Yo=You
That is why there is an arrest warrant out for you alppuccino ever since you threw that putter of yours after a missed tap in on the 16th green yesterday. Blaming your spouse for your own failures! Now you will really pay.
Sammy,
I don’t have any problems with those consenting adults that choose to live thier lives in what can be characterized as the gay lifestyle.
What I do have a problem with is the co-opting of the term marriage to describe their unions, when that specificity is reserved for the traditional hetero-normal pair bond that has evolved over the millenia. I consider it a baldfaced attempt to bestow an air of legitimacy and normalcy to lifestyle choice that is in direct opposition to that for which the term was invented.
I believe that it is simplyh a facet of this normalization campaign, another being the peddling of junk science to support that it is a “normal” biological function…
I have no problem with their choice, nor with the idea of their civil unions. Don’t put it on par with marriage, a societal construct that is an out growth of a religious institution, and consodered a sacrament in some religions…
I guess in the same way that Jeff G. rejects the theft of an authors intent by the mental gymnastics some perform with text, so too do I reject the theft of the intent of the institution of reproductive pair bonsing which has come to be known as marriage by those wishing to accelerate the mainstreaming of their lifestyle choices…
Call it whatever you want, but it’s not marriage, and it is complete secular in nature, not to be forced upon those religions who reject the lifestyle a priori…
I also resent the implication that I am somehow homophobic or a hater. You don’t know me, so please extend me the courtesy of the benefit of the doubt…
oh. good point, Joe.
Maybe Rs could propose tackling some of these nine thingers. The cohabitation requirement is very weird I think in an it’s really none of the government’s fucking business way.
I don’t know what “confidential marriage” is.
Has Sully removed his head from Palin’s uterus long enough to weigh in on this yet?
oh. link.
Civil marriage is a civil licence, not a sacrament (like Catholic marriage). So I am unaware of anywhere in the country where a civil marriage licence held by a same sex couple imposes any obligation on a religious minister or clergy member to recognize it (just like a Catholic priest does not have to marry two divorced persons). But if that does exist out there, please let us know.
Link. The date on that is May 20th, seven days ago, so maybe something has happened more recently. But, regardless, it seems to me that JD was accurate at comment #26.
Thanks, bh. That was the last I had heard on that. I suspect had there been further action, we would have heard about it. I just wanted to make sure I was not advancing a statement that was not accurate.
Where did I say that?
I just kicked a cat.
He didn’t say “Sammy said…” He asked a question. I think that all of us would be interested in seeing how you answered.
So essentially Prop. 8 puts the question outside of the purview of the California Legislature, requiring an amendment to the state constitution to change, right?
Well, most of us….well, a few.
Wow. That is amazing. I did not think gay marriage proponents in New Hampshire would be that stupid (must be P-Town tax refugees) to try to tie it in to religious marriage. Governor Lynch is just doing the eqivalent on this as what Harry Reid did with Obama’s Gitmo plan, saving his party. That is a crazy ass law that would be great if the Democrats did pass (if you are conservative).
Speak for yourself, Juliette ;-)
Count me in that group Juliette…
I assume that is when you do not wear your wedding ring and try to pick up other women.
Who is Juliette?
Joe, Juliette is baldilocks.
RE: #1,
“Draw your own conclusions.”
Democrats always behave monstrously.
Sammy still struggles with the declarative and interogative, it appears.
Kelly – Sammy struggles with tying its velcro shoes, and it pisses in its boots.
I am for non-restrictive civil unions, as I believe everyone in this great country of ours should have the right to suffer equally; suffer divorce, alimony, child custody disputes, the antagonizing of at least two families unto 3rd and 4th cousins, slander/libel/invective, hangup calls at 4 am, fistfights at family reunions, shunning, and all the other glorious detritus with which our modern society is ennobled.
I am presently planning a civil union with my cats; AFAIK, they have no extended family and no immediate access to lawyers.
alp @ 12
Oh. I accept that there was fault on both sides and when the hooking started, and the well-meaning advice of friends was making things worse rather than better, we did seek professional help, (at my expense of course!). You can’t guess how difficult it was to change the way I swing at my age.
For a while things were better, but then the sh-nking started and after that there could be no trust.
If you look at the top sportsmen there’s never any romantic attachment between them and their sports equipment. Just a straightforward commercial deal of mutual benefit.
This is the way I manage my affairs now, and I also keep the state the fuck out of my sportsbag.
The key to maintaining a good relationship with your golf clubs is to own several sets.
No.
Evolved over millenia, and continues to evolve. It’s not like the notion of marriage being a heterosexual pair is set in stone. Polygamy was legal in the US until 1862 and still occurs. Polygamy was likely the norm in biblical times. In Europe, marriage was arranged as basically a business agreement between families. There were some same-sex marriages in Rome, and in small numbers in some tribal societies.
If you a few sets of clubs, does that make you a swinger?
Chances are Carin, an erratic swinger.
Swinger, good one. Actually, it just means that my clubs know they can be replaced at a moment’s notice. They had better perform, or they are gone. The ultimate meritocracy.
But my golf pro once told me, and she was right, “It ain’t the clubs, JD. It’s your swing”.
You don’t ever get the feeling they are laughing at you behind your back, that is, at the top of your swing, JD?
Sdferr – They are spiteful things. Fickle, unpredictable, unreliable, and inconsistent, yet I love them so.
Or, alternatively, none at all.
That’s what I thought.
Sammy,
While I’ll grant you a few of the points you made, It’s my understanding that homosexuality carried a societal stigma in Roman culture. While it may have been a dalliance of the rich, and the subject of exposition by artists, it was certainly not a societally sanctioned practice in the Roman world…
And, the last I checked, none of the arranged marriages were among same sex couples…
One of the strong motivators of pair bonding is the guarantee of parental lineage. So while our ideas of sexual partnering may be evolving, concern of the parental lineage of naturally born children are not at issue in these type of unions…
This is not an invitiation to split hairs about invitro-fertilization or test-tube babies; we’re talking about naturally occurring behavior…
And while I won’t dispute you on a subject I’m ignorant of, it seems un-reasonable that small tribes would engage in homosexuality as a viable pair bond as it does not produce more society members…
With all due respect…
Right. Gay marriage is the slippery slope that will lead to (the return of) polygamy and marriage to animals.
Yes.
The ONLY “small tribe” I know of that engages in same-sex marriages is…the Igbo? I think, and it’s purely for monetary reasons. Women of lower social/financial status can be taken as wives by women with more money, who can then support them as a husband would. They still take male lovers for, well, sexual needs and baby-makin’.
Other same-sex-marriage-ish stuff that goes on usually involves gender-role reassignment with people we’d probably call transsexuals in Western society. o_o b
Needless to say, this isn’t an ‘evolution’ of marriage so much as random genetic noise that has, so far, gotten pruned out as a viable alternative (largely because homosexual “marriages” have a Darwinian fitness of 0). Comparing polygamy and homosexual marriage is an apple-and-oranges thing; polygamy is also (by and large) a financial/social adaptation of the two-partner pair bond that arises due to stressors on the society. (I.e., in the case of the Mormon church, polygamy was a response to the fact that a larger number of women than men joined the new church and–given the culture of the time and how difficult it was for an unsupported woman to get, well, ANYWHERE, it was practical to provide as many women as possible with a husband so they COULD have financial support for travel and so on. In other cases, polyGYNY is a tactic for population growth, while the few polyANDROUS societies seem to be attempting to either limit the population or provide the financial benefit of multiple males in the household for a smaller number of children. While you could, and I’ve seen this argued some places, postulate homosexuality as a response to overcrowding–sexual attraction to members of the same sex means you’re not producing any more babies to increase the population–homosexual pair-bonding by and large seems to be different from heterosexual pair bonding and wow, this is kind of getting off-track by a lot. Anyway.)
My principle argument with people who make the “marriage (is/should be) a human right because people need to marry the people they love which is integral to their pursuit of happiness” is, well…quantify love, and why social and religious recognition of that specific bond is required so that lovers may pursue happiness. idk, ymmv, wtfbbq.
It’s not like the notion of marriage being a heterosexual pair is set in stone.
Unless you believe in some transcendent notion of absolute objective ethics and truth. And that’s just crazy talk.
Pellegri!! um… hi. That’s all I got.
It’s not like the notion of marriage being a heterosexual pair is set in stone.
Lefties don’t believe that anything is set in stone except for their own moral superiority. So. You know. The ten commandments are set in stone and that doesn’t seem to phase them.
Right. Gay marriage is the slippery slope that will lead to (the return of) polygamy and marriage to animals.
Don’t know about animals, but polygamy is already being practiced outside the law by thousands of people in the mountain west. And then there are the Muslims, who in Canada are trying to get their multiple wives recognized.
The paperwork for legitimizing polygamy is already in the hopper, son. Just try to stop it.
Further, you can make a better case for polygamy than for same-sex marriage, the former being a reproductive strategy and the latter totally not. Keep in mind that polygamy enables people to reproduce like crazy, and if you’ll get Mark Steyn on the white courtesy phone, he can tell you what the logical result of that is.
feets!~! Hai! I am back from my peregrination to other internets to talk about things on PW once more!
Keep in mind that polygamy enables people to reproduce like crazy, and if you’ll get Mark Steyn on the white courtesy phone, he can tell you what the logical result of that is.
I rofl’d. dicentra, have I told you lately that I love you?
Sammy, would you have legislative compulsion of a church to perform a marriage their tenets don’t sanction?
How generous of you. Already people who choose not to recognize same-sex marriages are being compelled by the state to service those pairs. A photographer who refused to shoot a lesbian wedding got sued and how. eHarmony.com has been compelled to offer same-sex pairing services. Churches who don’t want to make their facilities available for same-sex wedding receptions are being sanctioned. Catholic Charities is being harassed for not adopting out children to same-sex couples.
So, you can sit there and be against the compulsion all you want, but others are going right ahead with it.
dicentra, have I told you lately that I love you?
No, and it’s never to late to make up for it. :D
Sammy, I don’t mind if you boooof your mate to your hearts delight.
But you can’t be married. Your left hand cannot be your right hand.
Huff, puff, whine cry, piss, moan, throw a fit and pitch a bitch.
Sorry Sammy. Run along now.
What was it before it was a man and a woman?
I’m not a leftie. In fact, I generally hate lefties. I’m a hater.
But where is that commandment that thou shalt only marry a person of the opposite sex?
Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
Also, see Sodom and Gomorrah.
Oh…gone you say? Well there you go.
Fail. What if your parents want you to be gay?
How about thou shall not covet? Oh, except that would only apply to heterosexuals because you can’t “covet” junk you’ve already got.
Never mind.
Uh, pete, missed a trick there.
Implication is families should have both a mother and a father around to honor.
Wow, so divorce really is a Sin.
And since it is a Sin a against God, against the Ten Commandments even, then we would make it illegal.
Now guys, read that sentence again a couple of times and tell me if you can see the leap.
yours/
peter.
I’m not makin’ that argument one way or t’other, just pointing out why it got reffed.
No one is trying to make homosexuality illegal, the plan is to prevent something that has never been legal from becoming so.
As far as divorce goes, there are laws regarding it in the Bible, it isn’t strictly prohibited like homosexual behavior is. Having said that, it is discouraged, and let me ask you. Was it helpful for our society to make divorce quick and easy with no fault divorce?
Do you think we should make divorce illegal?
I mean, Christ was silent on the topic of homosexuality, but he wasn’t silent on divorce.
No, divorce shouldn’t be illegal.
Jesus wasn’t silent on homosexuality either.
Really? Can you think of a cite?
The only mentions of homosexuality that I know of in the entire Canon is Leviticus (before the prohibition of clothing of mixed fiber and after the prohibition on eating shellfish) and the Apostle Paul, who referred to it as “an abomination.”
Lots of good points.
On the notion that marriage has historically been defined as one man and one woman, I think for most of human history, until very recent times, polygamy was seen as a completely normal form of marriage. I’m not claiming that polygamy is the same as gay marriage, but simply stating that marriage has not always been simply one man and one woman.
Now, is marriage always a religious ceremony? It seems religious marriages are a subset of all marriages. You can have a completely secular marriage, down at the courthouse, or performed by any other person your local jurisdiction authorizes (your mileage may vary, but in many jurisdictions a marriage can be performed by a notary public, judge, elected official, or people who simply fill out a form and pay a fee).
So what’s the states interest in marriages? States certainly take an interest as no marriage is valid unless it’s licensed by the state. Some have argued that marriages exist primarily for procreation. I would argue that most states view population growth as a problem to manage, not something to encourage. Therefore, it seems that states do not issue marriage licenses as a way to encourage procreation.
The state does not require you to declare intent to have children. Many people marry who have no intention of bearing offspring. There’s no penalty for this. The state also imposes no penalty for having children out of wedlock (although one could argue that the state should have an interest in discouraging this).
I would also argue that allowing gay marriages does nothing statistically significant to reduce the number of heterosexual marriages and birth rates. We should know the answer to this by simply looking at the states that allow gay marriage to see if heterosexual marriages and birth rates decrease. While there are some homosexuals who enter heterosexual marriage out of denial or social pressure, I don’t think it’s an enormous amount, especially among today’s younger generations. And even if the birth rates declined slightly, I believe many states would view this as a benefit.
I believe that the states interest in marriage is to reduce the burden on the state. Married couples support each other and are less likely to require state support and services. Marriage makes it more likely that children will have a caregiver, should something happen to one parent. Married couples care for each-other as they age. Married couples can make legal decisions for each-other, reducing the burden on the state legal system. I would guess that married people are more socially responsible.
But all of those things apply to gay and straight married couples. I see nothing in gay marriage that’s a detriment to the state; certainly nothing that outweighs the benefits to the state. I also see nothing in gay marriage that in any way interferes with people’s ability to have a heterosexual marriage.
It is so nice to see Pellegri around again, even if she is crossing her arms beneath her ample bosom ;-)
Did someone kick a cat ?
That smell… it smells like.. AW MAN! Someone squeezed JD’s head again.
A wacky subtext at play here is that JD mentioned earlier that he was an elephant hunter in regards to turf at stadiums across the country.
There is not a male or degenerate gambler within a thousand miles who didn’t immediately think, “Please tell us more. Fast fields, injury creating fields, tell us more.”
Sammy, all of your assumptions about what marriage is either focus on the superficial legalities that accompany marriage or assume that marriage is whatever a given society says it is: no more and no less.
But it’s not your fault that our society has systematically devalued marriage to the point that you can’t tell instinctively that two people of the same sex can’t possibly constitute a marriage.
It wasn’t so long ago that the hip thing to say was “we don’t need a piece of paper to prove our love.” Which reduced marriage to (a) a love pledge and (b) a legal contract. Both of which are elements in marriage but which don’t even come close to explaining how marriage functions in society and in the human psyche.
I also see nothing in gay marriage that in any way interferes with people’s ability to have a heterosexual marriage.
And this proves it. Nobody is saying that gay marriage will prevent traditional marriages from existing. Torch that straw man already.
Furthermore, your assumption that lower birth rates are a net benefit to society is also mistaken. Europe is struggling with its huge social welfare state that requires ever increasing numbers of new workers to support the state’s financial burdens. Take a look at your average small town, where all the youngsters have gone to the city to find work, and tell me how that population reduction has helped the town fiscally.
I would try to expound on the deeper reasons for marriage, but previous conversations with you about things spiritual — even on an elementary level — proved futile.
Let me put it this way: this isn’t about the damned adults and what turns them on — it’s about the children. Every child is entitled to be raised by his or her natural parents whenever possible. When not possible, adoptive parents and step-parents will do (though an adopted infant does exactly as well as a natural-born infant).
We are psychologically pre-programmed to learn from our parents how to relate to the two sexes, with the same-sex parent providing the model and the opposite-sex parent providing the foil or the complement. It is enraging to me that the elite among us assert that men and women are interchangeable in these roles. THEY ARE NOT. Father and mother are primordial archetypes that every child needs to develop normally. If one or both are missing, the child has been deprived of something important.
Fathers and mothers contribute different psychological support for each child, and the lefties that assert that “men can nurture” and “women can lay down the law” are being fundamentally dishonest, because in reality they are more interested in indulging adult narcissism than in ensuring that children have exactly what they need, even if adults have to sacrifice their whims or even desires.
And before you lay that “but what about childless couples” crap on me, marriage is also about forcing people to grow the hell up. The intimate relationship of marriage to the opposite sex — who at the level of a romantic/sexual relationship is a freaking ALIEN to you — forces you to adapt to, empathize with, and compromise with someone whose perspective and goals are at best strange to you and at worst loathsome.
Again, Sammy, it’s not your fault that your understanding of marriage is so shallow. The public understanding of marriage has degraded terribly, to the point that it’s HARD to make the case against same-sex marriage in fora such as this. (And being single, my understanding is theoretical more than empirical, but I still get it better than most in our society.)
The degradation of the concept of marriage has led to the rampant divorce, fatherlessness, and other narcissistic “adult” behavior relative to our offspring. Furthermore, I heard today on the radio the idea that marriage serves as a bulwark AGAINST the state, because the marital unit can override the state with regard to all kinds of decisions.
I wish there were some way to bulk-educate the populace on the deeper things that make the proper understanding of marriage possible, but I fear that only a Very Hard Lesson — consisting of societal breakdown — will do the trick.
If at all…
I love savaging strawpeople with an acetylene blowtorch.
-Sammy
You should know that one of the first moves of a totalitarian ideology is to break down the competition: family and church. Tyrannies don’t want strong families to exist, and definitely don’t want strong churches.
Food for thought…
bh – Ask, and you shall receive. Unless you are asking for that little mendoucheous fucker Sammy, in which case, I will lead you astray.
JD, no, this is a public forum and information like this should only be shared with with me.
If we can get together the next time you travel up north, we’ll trade info on our areas of expertise.
No problem. Shocking some of the things one learns …
Matthew 5:17-18
1 Corinthians 6:15-20
Galatians 5:19
Ephesians 5:3
Colossians 3:5
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
Hebrews 12:16, 13:4
1 Peter 4:2-5
Jude 7
And gay marriage won’t lower the birth rate in small towns.
And gay marriage won’t prevent a single child from being raised by his or her natural parents.
So you’re saying that gay people who enter a lifelong committed relationship are simply indulging in whims and desires, but straight people who enter a lifelong committed relationship are somehow engaging in some arduous yet noble endeavor? If that’s what you’re implying, it seems a bit bigoted.
And gay people aren’t going to marry someone of the opposite sex. They simply aren’t. Being married to someone of the same sex is going to teach adaptation, empathy, and compromise more than not being married at all. If you don’t know that, then you don’t know many gay people in committed lifelong relationships. Marriage is both the most wonderful blessing, and a hell of a lot of work – straight or gay.
And gay marriage neither improves nor worsens that.
Even gay marriage.
And there’s the crux of it. Allow gay marriage and society swirls down the crapper. It’s just one more thing that will make… what? Teen pregnancy increase? Crime increase? Selfishness increase? Charitability decrease? Civility decrease? Divorce increase?
You can’t possibly know that. We have an experiment under way. Gay marriage is a reality in some states. Let’s see how it works out. I’ll be open to all the evidence, and not just that which supports my bias. Will you?
If same-sex marriage were the moral and functional equivalent of real marriage, societies would have adopted it long ago. It’s foolish of Sammy et al. to ascribe resistance to unisex marriage as nothing but an old bigotry.
No major religious or philosophical tradition — including non-Western and non-Biblical traditions — have upheld unisex marriage as an acceptable variant on marriage. This isn’t a case of old bigotry but a case of old understanding of reality.
Marriage is an institution that you enter into, not something you make yourself. It pre-exists you and it transcends you.
But our society is obsessed with making absolutely everything egalitarian. We can hardly ever think of a reason for telling someone NO, you can’t do this or that.
BECAUSE OF THE FAIRNESS!
Fairness isn’t always the highest goal. Preserving the psychological health of a society has to be right up there, too. And erasing the categories of male and female, masculine and feminine — when they’re hard-wired into our biology — can only be nonsense.
If that’s what you’re implying, it seems a bit bigoted.
Only because you see Making Distinctions as an inherently bigoted activity.
We have an experiment under way.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION!!!!
Because this is the first time that same-sex attraction has surfaced, right? You really think that other societies before us haven’t experimented with “alternate lifestyles”? Why, then, did they discontinue the practice and go back to sexual strictures and marriage?
Allow gay marriage and society swirls down the crapper. It’s just one more thing that will make… what? Teen pregnancy increase? Crime increase? Selfishness increase? Charitability decrease? Civility decrease? Divorce increase?
Like you said, this is a social experiment. So the precise nature of the downsides is not precisely known. Except for the part where ancient wisdom warns us against it. And it constitutes Yet Another Alternative To Real Marriage, the culmination of 40 years of promiscuity, pretending to marry, divorce, fatherlessness, etc.
The male/female aspect of marriage is at the root of its definition. Same-sex marriage is by definition a counterfeit.
But I suspect that what society loses by engaging in this little experiment is not something you treasure to begin with (let alone comprehend), so it’s useless to argue with you.
That reasoning just doesn’t stand up. By that logic, we should still allow slavery, as it existed for (at least) 5,800 of the last 6,000 years. Interracial marriage was also forbidden. We do occasionally get to ask, “Is this really right? Does this still make sense?â€
Gay marriage doesn’t have anything to do with that. Gay marriage doesn’t erase the concept of masculine and feminine. It doesn’t sound like gay marriage is really the issue. It sounds like you simply have a problem gay people. (whisper: what do you propose we do with them?)
Ah, the real reason for opposing gay marriage – the power trip. It’s all about getting to tell someone else “No!†I have a suggestion for you. IF YOU THINK HOMOSEXUALITY IS EVIL, DON’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX.
But please, get down off your “I get to tell everyone else how to live†high horse. You don’t, and that’s what I love about this country.
Sammy, why is it so important to you that gay people get to call their relationships “marriages”?
As Ric Locke said a while back, it’s like passing a law to declare cattle vegetables, so vegans can eat hamburgers.
We’re talking about societies that owned slaves, drilled skulls and attached leaches to adjust humors, burned witches, fed Christians to lions for fun, took someone who dared question god and threw rocks at them until they were dead, believed the sun was the wheel on a chariot, believed wearing jade would protect against bad luck. These societies?
Actually, it’s not that important to me. It does seem important to gay people, but I’m not sure why.
Personally, I’d like to see the state get out of the religious side of the equation all together, and focus on the state’s interests. I’d like to see the state issue only civil union licenses, and have marriage certificates presented by your clergy at your wedding.
I’ve got more to read, but I couldn’t let this pass:
o what’s the states interest in marriages? States certainly take an interest as no marriage is valid unless it’s licensed by the state. Some have argued that marriages exist primarily for procreation. I would argue that most states view population growth as a problem to manage, not something to encourage. Therefore, it seems that states do not issue marriage licenses as a way to encourage procreation.
States view population growth as a problem to manage? Erm, I don’t think so.
And we’re talking about one that believes that humans, via the natural production of a naturally occurring element, are controlling the weather and are capable of controlling it moreso than it already does. Oh, and that we’re all gonna die if we don’t manage global temperatures better.
Some people are just nuts.
And yet you can read the minds and see into the hearts of SSM opponents?
Piss off, Sammy.
#131: Sammy is a simple-minded little fuck, isn’t he, and I say that as someone who actually agrees with his #130.
Weird. Based on the behavior of the two sides, I thought that was the reason for supporting gay “marriage”.
If there were another reason, they’d be able to make their argument to the voters and win at the ballot box.
#131: Sammy is a simple-minded little fuck, isn’t he, and I say that as someone who actually agrees with his #130.
Yeah, ironic isn’t it? I agree with #130 as well yet Sammy and others of his kind make me want to punch them in the face. I actually think there’s a better conservative argument to be made for gay marriage than anything the left has to offer but it’s safe to say that they’re both to stupid and emotion-driven to be sable to put it forth. They like the anger, the struggle and the juvenile tantrums inherent in fighting for a cause way more than they ever care about a cause itself.
It is alphie, with the wall o’text, and without the balloon fence and mile-high dirt berm.
I know. It’s our patronizing, condescending tone of voice. The way we sigh – in an ever Gore like way. (If Obama is Teh One, then Gore is our “John the Baptist”) We’re a Mac-owning, turtleneck-wearing, latte-sipping bunch. But even though you want to punch us in the face, please don’t, because we invent things like – oh, I don’t know – Google, Wikipedia, and the technology that powers MSNBC and Fox news.
I’m not being sarcastic. I know our conversation style is a bit like nails on the chalkboard. But we’re just not wired to hitch up our jeans and say, ‘Queers ain’t natural.’ We’re just born this way.
Can you prove that? Scientifically, and all?
I’m not being sarcastic.
No, you’re not being sarcastic. You’re just saying what you know. From your little cocoon world where what you know about conservatives is spoon-fed to you by Bill Maher and John Stewert and Obly.
I know you’re all impressed by your wittle liberal inventions, but I seriously doubt you want to get into some sort of right/ left productivity competition . I mean, it would be fun and all …
I’m not being sarcastic.
No, you’re not being sarcastic. You’re just saying what you know. From your little cocoon world where what you know about conservatives is spoon-fed to you by Bill Maher and John Stewert and Obly.
I know you’re all impressed by your wittle liberal inventions, but I seriously doubt you want to get into some sort of right/ left productivity competition . I mean, it would be fun and all …
Carin – Conservatives are Teh SuxXor. All the good inventions are belong to us.
I tell ya, all those folks in Detroit collecting unemployment have really come up with a bevy of good ideas for their side of the political isle.
And, the politicians of detroit (all dems) have come up with all sorts of new ways to institute corruption. Kwame was a trailblazer.
I know. It’s our patronizing, condescending tone of voice. The way we sigh – in an ever Gore like way. (If Obama is Teh One, then Gore is our “John the Baptistâ€) We’re a Mac-owning, turtleneck-wearing, latte-sipping bunch. But even though you want to punch us in the face, please don’t, because we invent things like – oh, I don’t know – Google, Wikipedia, and the technology that powers MSNBC and Fox news.
I’m not being sarcastic. I know our conversation style is a bit like nails on the chalkboard. But we’re just not wired to hitch up our jeans and say, ‘Queers ain’t natural.’ We’re just born this way.
I just wanted to copy that so others would have the pleasure of reading it twice. To double teh funny.
Too bad you didn’t. But even if you could claim that as true, your entire inventive process has been for entertainment, which isn’t exactly – shall we say – a net positive or for the greater good. It’s like saying you’re a better clown than your debate opponent then smugly smiling because you figure you just won.
And its pretty clear that Peter Jackson is deliberately missing any point that might threaten his worldview or presumptions.
I don’t know, I think his comment #86 might be his most honest one.
Yep, when people want to really cut lose and have fun… they read encyclopedias.
Heh if you think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, you probably think Sophistry is Eloquence.
Oh wait…
It’s our patronizing, condescending tone of voice.
No, mostly it’s your stupidity.
we invent things like – oh, I don’t know – Google, Wikipedia, and the technology that powers MSNBC and Fox news.
No, you didn’t.
I know the people who are inventing the next gen of those sorts of things, and you’re way too stupid to be one of them. Hell, I know some of the people who invented the first gen.
I refuse that Macintoshes be slandered by association with Sammy’s breed. Which aren’t liberals, they’re the donkey in ye olde INTERNET ARGUMENT image macro. (… … GOOGLE IT)
You notice that many of the things you listed (slavery aside–but I would go on to argue that it still exists TO THIS DAY; the First World is sort of an outlier, and even then, we have “slavery” under far more polite terms) died out pretty quick, along with the societies who really took them to heart. Or if they were neutral adaptations, rather than maladaptation, they stuck around while the society thrived in other ways.
Also, leeches? Great for increasing vascularization in new skin transplants. Trepanning is believed to have been useful in relieving some disorders of the skull and brain by relieving intercranial pressure. Paul Feyerabend has a great theory on how you can believe whatever you damn well please about the world around you and it’s a fine empirical worldview IF IT WORKS–and last I checked it really doesn’t matter so much for a pre-spacefaring/pre-radio society WHAT the sun is.
Everything else you listed–i.e., interhuman violence–is pretty much still going on, even to this day, even in the US. Sometimes it ain’t fatal, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an essential part of human behavior. That you’re indulging in name-calling and castigation of your social inferiors indicates that your “kind” are as involved with it as any ancient society.
Oh yes. *crosses arms, winks at JD* ♥
PPS: IIRC those DIRTY MORMONS who supported Prop 8 were down with women’s suffrage back before the States were. Women in Utah LOST the right to vote when it joined the Union.
The more you know!
Please, don’t anybody point out to Sambot that the abolition movement was made up primarily of…shudder…Christians.
We wouldn’t want to be responsible for a cerebrovascular accident.
It’s cool, we can always cut open his skull if he has a stroke, dirty savages that we are.
And won’t we look foolish when there’s no eats in there.
look foolishbe disappointed
BTW, Sambot, Jimbo Wales is an Objectivist.
And the guys who really invented the Internet were all working for DARPA.
Dumbass.
And the NSF, and a bunch of college profs and grad students, and CERN.
And despite what the MSM says, there are way more tech companies headquartered in Kansas than in (what to they call it? oh yeah) Silicon Valley.
Assclown
Lies. Al Gore created the internet to battle global warming.
SWOON !!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-) Pellegri
CERN
No.
Next.
I see you simply ignored the point about leftoids “inventing Wikipedia”.
Yeah, Objectivism is a well-known leftist philosophy.
Dumbass.
BTW, Sambot: if you’re so clueless that you don’t know the difference between the Web and the Internet, it becomes even more risible for you to claim that “we” invented those things.
Good news from NRO:
Maybe these activists are growing up. I hope this is a trend.
Matthew 5:17-18
This is Christ speaking about the law. No mention of sin or sexuality or homosexuality or marriage specifically.
1 Corinthians 6:15-20
Galatians 5:19
This is Paul speaking generally about the body. It’s not Christ speaking.
Ephesians 5:3
Paul again.
Colossians 3:5
Again Paul, not Christ, opining against imputity in general.
1 Thessalonians 4:3-5
Paul again, not Christ, this time speaking against fornication, not homosexuality.
Hebrews 12:16, 13:4
More Paul, whom I prefer to call Saul of Tarsus, speaking on marriage and fornication and adultery.
1 Peter 4:2-5
My namesake, not Christ, warning against all manner of sin, including “banqueting,” but no mention of teh gay. Or teh marriage…
Jude 7
My oldest son’s namesake, warning against “going after strange flesh.” Interesting, but still not Christ.
Lee, I appreciate the cites, but none of them are about Christ mentioning homosexuality, much less condemning it. Indeed, only your first cite quotes Christ at all, and I challenge anyone to explain how this is a mention of homosexuality. So I have to stand by my original statement: Christ was silent on the topic of homosexuality.
yours/
peter.
Right. Objectivism = Conservative Christianity.
Hey conservatives, how many of you read that and say, “Hey, that sounds just like me!”
Give it up peter. There’s nothing in the bible about abortion either. There’s one passage (Exodus 21:22-25) that might explicitly say abortion is murder, or might explicitly say it’s not.
But, since much of religion is about the power trip of telling others what they can or cannot do, who’s going to let a little ambiguity get in the way? Many (most?) Christians know, for certain, that God considers the destruction of a zygote formed one millisecond ago as exactly the same, in every way, as killing an 18 year old. They know it for certain. There’s no doubt whatsoever. It’s right there in Exodus, except Exodus might say the exact opposite.
But I suppose they can be certain that God views (1ms zygote == 18 year old). Since the Bible is likely fiction, and God is something they imagine, they’re able to make God believe whatever they want God to believe. QED. They get to tell you what to do. You can’t argue back, because they’re not telling you what to do, God is.
Hey lee, you left out Romans.
Right. Objectivism = Conservative Christianity.
Hey conservatives, how many of you read that and say, “Hey, that sounds just like me!â€
Do you even know where you are? A lot of regulars here aren’t particularly religious. If it seems otherwise that’s only because the rest of us aren’t proggy-programmed intolerant fuckwits like you are. And if you want to talk about a philosophy that places personal happiness as the highest objective, you might want to consider how empty your life must be that when the left has complete control of Washington you’re nonetheless whiling away time at a blog where every last person thinks you’re an imbecile.
Peter, you have to be kidding me.
The law of the old testament definitely said that homosexuality was an abomination. Hello…Sodom and Gomorrah!
Jesus said in Matthew:
Ergo, homosexuality is still a sin.
Also, granted it was mostly Paul in the other verses, but for crying out loud, he was an apostle, spreading the teachings of Christ. I’m pretty sure what he said you can count on being the word of God(that would be Jesus)
I mean, do you really think you have a case that Christianity doesn’t regard homosexuality as a sin?
And Sammy, you are right, the Bible doesn’t use the word “abortion”.
However, it does say something about murder, and Christians believe a baby in it’s mothers womb is human life, and it shouldn’t be killed. It’s really that simple.
I wouldn’t get too bent about those two things if I were you though. As the saying goes, you’ll go to hell for lying just as quick as stealing.
I mean, lee, do you really think you have a case that the Christian God, and only the Christian God, exists? That there’s a supernatural entity the sits on a cloud (or where ever) hears individual prayers, punishes sin, performs the occasional supernatural miracle, evades all method of detection, creates the universe but can’t write his own books (needs people for that).
I especially love the part where he’s all powerful, and creates a universe, makes a planet, puts people on it, puts them right next to an evil tree, and says, “Hey whatever you do, don’t eat that.”
They, of course, can’t keep their hands off of it.
“Bad humans. Bad, bad, bad! You’ve really made a mess, and now I have to sort this out. Let me think about it for 4000 years. Oh, and suffer. Especially you woman.”
Now Adam (who sounds exactly like Jack Black) wasn’t one to talk smack, or he might have thought to say, “Hey, God, you know when you were going on and on about that tree, and how it was so awesome, and how it’s was like the best fucking tree ever, and you kept saying, ‘Damn, that is one fine tree, if I do say so myself.’
“And then you said, ‘Hey, newbs, I’m only gonna tell you once, but you need to stay away from my tree of total awesomeness, because it will kick your fucking ass.’ Well, you might have mentioned something about talking snakes.”
Well, I believe there is a God that created our reality, yeah.
Mock me if you must, no skin off my nose.
If you are really interested in exactly what I believe, read Classic Christianity, by Bob George.
Lee, apologies for my mockery. You’re a class act.
I see that Sammy is back to you cannot prove God exists, but went even farther and now just openly mocks those that believe. You are a vile little fucker, Sammy. At least your prior versions understood the value in brevity.
Right. Objectivism = Conservative Christianity.
No. But you do = a liar.
An unusually clumsy and stupid one.
[…] DEATH TO THE HOMOVOLTAIC JUDGES! California’s State Supreme Court upheld Prop 8 today; Split decision on California Prop 8 gay […]
Ok Sammy, apology accepted.
Objectivism is a philosophy for living. It promotes values like love, friendship, wealth, and comfort. It respects science, technology, and innovation. It emphasizes reason and clarity. It values purposefulness, achievement, and success. It reveres passionate living, and pursing the greatest heights. It sets personal happiness as your goal, and gives you the tools to figure out how to achieve it.
Hey, that sounds just like me!
And let’s not get into what I believe about God, Sammy. It scares people. :]
Apologies not offered in good faith do not mean much, lee.
Well, I accepted it for what it was worth.
Perhaps his masked slipped in #170, maybe he was just drunk, I don’t know, but I’ve seen a lot worse trolls than Sammy. At least he tries to join in the debate, and adds something besides the buffoonery of poon.
Anyway, if someone apologizes for bad behavior, I’m not above accepting it.
Well at least with the Matthew cite you have a plausible point. But it sort of begs the question that your interpretation above that Christ meant all of Jewish law, including all of Leviticus, well, why isn’t modern Christianianity more like Hasidim? There’s some pretty whacky rules in Leviticus, most of which I’ll go out on a limb and presume that you would never obey, or judge anyone else for refusing to obey: the dietary restrictions, clothing restrictions, the dispensation of wives amongst family, all sorts of weird stuff. The next question is of course what makes homosexual sex so special?
Oooh, totally hosed the quotes in that one. Sorry Lee.
OK Peter, I guess that gives an out to pedephiles too, Jesus never said anything about nailing four year olds.
Matthew 18:6 (King James Version)
6But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
yours/
peter.
peter
re: wacky laws in Leviticus
see baby, bathwater.
What baby? Point to the baby. The wall of separation between Leviticus and US law should be high and wide.
Extra credit: tell me what Levitican law—other than the anti-gay law—you believe should inform our laws today.
Don’t sleep with your mother in law, or your wife’s sister. Don’t eat stuff you find dead on the side of the road, etc.
Remove God from the equation and then determine whether the wisdom provided still makes sense.
I’m hoping for an A. Or at least a smiley face sticker.
And strangely, none of those are laws today in our literate, non-goat herding world. What about the one that commands you to take your brother’s wife if your brother dies? Truthfully, I think we can do better than Leviticus. Don’t you?
You went for the extra credit and came back with more than one answer even, so you deserve the A. And half a dozen different types of animal sacrifices too =8^]
I think that to disregard the wisdom of that which came before us is to do ourselves a disservice. It smacks of an entirely unhelpful lack of humility. That said, we are on the same page, we just come to different conclusions on the specifics.
Why animal sacrifices, from a point of view considering that God has a specific set of principles to set down as law?
Knowledge is costly to obtain and difficult to conserve. That’s what conservativism is really, the understanding that regardless of how shiny and pretty the latest fad is, the likelihood that it trumps the acquired, evolved collective wisdom of the last 500 generations isn’t very likely. I just don’t think the Enlightenment or the classically liberal theory of governance based on individual freedom it spawned are fads. I doubt you do either.
Yes, we are on the same page, possibly the same paragraph. Most of us here are, really.
Oh, the animal sacrifices were a reference to Leviticus. The first “priestly” laws laid down are the types of animal sacrifices required for various purposes and the penitence for different types of sin. Lots of ritual washing too.
So we have abandoned the laws, those which did exist on this nations founding, regarding adultery. What we need to do, I think, is to examine whether that abandonment was wise on the whole. What did we gain, what did we lose? We also, I think, need to weigh the advantage to society as a whole vs the advantage to the individual.
As an example, legalizing use of methamphetamines would increase personal liberty, but would it increase or decrease our shared liberty as a society?
A side note, our laws on debt are still based on the 7 year rule found in Leviticus.
My take on the animal sacrifice is that they were an act of humility. Giving something to that which allowed what you were allowed to get in the first place.
Peter, if you want to believe (and apparently attempt to convince others) that Jesus is A-OK with homosexual behavior, I’ll leave that between you and Him. I think you are gravely misguided, but the debate is fruitless as far as I’m concerned.
First you say my cites were from the apostle Paul, and not Jesus, then when I say Paul was spreading Jesus teachings (he became an apostle by virtue of what “allegedly” happened on the road to Damascus), you say he wasn’t an apostle at all just a raving extremist.
Then when I point out Jesus said nothing in the law would end before the world, you say (basically) because we don’t follow dietary laws, that can’t be true. I suggest you read Mark 7, and then consider that Jesus was the fulfillment of the law, not the end of it.
Lastly, when I point out that by your logic, pedophiles have no worries because Jesus never specifically spoke about it (sorry, those pervs don’t believe they are “offending” their victims, but giving them joy and love), you give me a verse that is less specific towards pedophilia than Jesus condemnation of fornication is towards homosexuality.
Which is where this is all headed. If homosexuals can just get their perversions socially accepted enough to be called marriage, then it closes the fornication loophole, and voila, no longer is it a sin.
It’s all very clever and stuff, but I don’t think lawyer tricks will work on God like you think they will.
Oh, and also, I’m not making a case that homosexuality should be made illegal in American law. It’s illegal to discriminate based on that, there is civil unions, and I’m fine with that. I’m only addressing Christian doctrine.
The attempt to corrupt the meaning of marriage to include gay couples (after they said they would be happy with civil unions) is nothing more than an attack on Christianity, IMHO. I think the argument that the state should get out of the marriage business completely, and only concern themselves with civil unions, is a valid argument, but I still maintain that that would have the same effect. That is, further invalidate the traditional family, and it’s special place in civilization. One that is already greatly weakened by easy divorce, loss of stigmatization of casual sex and out of wedlock babies, among others in a ling list.
I don’t think a society can thrive and advance without morals and standards, and the decay of this one is more evident every day. I feel it important to resist.
That’s all I got.
I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that I don’t really know, but I do know that you don’t know either. And the benefit is freedom, obviously. Gay marriage? It would make gay Americans, a small but numerous minority, quite happy, and equal to you and me. And for the rest of us it’s literally no skin off our noses whatsoever. And ironically, we’d wind up a more conservative society as a result.
Actually I do know, the God of Abraham whom Jesus called father didn’t vaporize Sodom because he was in a bad mood that day.
And if you think the gay movement will be happy when you give in to gay marriage, you are delusional. After that will come the lawsuits against churches and any others that object. Hate crimes against any that don’t capitulate. Then the fight for multiple partner marriage, and on and on.
Enjoy it, ‘cuz that’s where what you are pulling for is headed.
Well I’m not aware of any mention of homosexuality regarding Sodom and Gomorra. Fornication, adultery and idolatry, that’s what I remember. That’s the problem Lee. You think you know and you really don’t.
Nope. Churches can and have always been able to marry anyone they want and refuse anyone they want for any reason that moves them.
Polygamy is an interesting case. The arguments for it are compelling and similar to gay marriage arguments, and I personally don’t have a problem with it. But at the same time polygamy isn’t legal anywhere for anyone. In the business world states have contracts defining business entities, such as partnerships and corporations. On the civil side there are and have always been partnership marriage, but there isn’t nor has there ever been a corporate marriage contract. It just doesn’t exist. It would be therefore hard to demonstrate discrimination for being denied a “right” that doesn’t exist anywhere for anyone. Equality before the law doesn’t demand everyone get everything they may want, it merely requires that either everyone gets it, or no one gets it.
There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.
Oh really…
a peek into our future.
Marriage is a social institution between a man and a woman. There is nothing stopping any man and woman from marrying. A gay man is free to marry any woman that will have him for her husband.
No discrimination.
humm, Oh was supposed to be a link too…
Yes discrimination.
You could use your exact same argument to defend anti-miscegenation laws. Everyone has the same right to marry someone of their own race. Right? By legally denying same sex marriages, the government is discriminating based on sex, just like anti-miscegenation laws discriminate on the basis of race. There is no other contract—and remember, that’s what we’re talking about here, a contract—that specifies the gender of it’s parties. In the eyes of the state, contracts should be between the party of the first part and the party of the second part: adult citizens of reasonably sound mind.
Hey, thanks for the links, I especially liked the peek into the future. I find it profoundly ironic that the the largest group in favor of polygamy, such as they are, are ultra-religious, adhering to the old ways. And thus it comes full circle. I’m not big on anthropomorphizing God, but if that isn’t evidence of His sense of humor then I don’t know what could be. But take heart, Lee. If that truly is a peek at our true future, it’s not going to harm traditional marriage, or even meaningfully affect it in any way, and it will mean a net gain for political freedom in our society.
yours/
peter.
If that’s true, why not be happy with the civil unions gay activists fought for, won, and claimed they would be happy with? Why the hang up over the word “marriage”?
We both know the answer, but only one of us is comfortable with it.
Actually, I have no problem with it at all, spiritual or otherwise.
I thoroughly enjoyed this discussion, thanks lee, and everyone.
yours/
peter.